BuzzerBeater Forums

Well, that's all I needed to read. The taxes were *always* dependent on the number of previous sales (at least, as far back as season 15, when I joined). What has changed is that for teams with a high number of sales, that tax has increased further.

I dont think this information was in the Game Manual before the changes, but perhaps Perpete can confirm if the so-called daytrading tax was not really something new, but the change of rules which were already present. I tend to doubt the information you're giving out here, hrudey, since nobody, as far as I know, has come out showing values even remotely close to 80% after the change even with very few sales in the previous 14 weeks.

In any case, we're derailing the thread here and there is no meaningful impact to my point even if I can change my statement into: "when the revenues from a sale were not as massively dependant on the number of previous sales."

I also found another manager who openly said he was going to fire to avoid the new tax (or the "extra" new tax if what you say is true) (264414.116)

Last edited by Lemonshine at 3/23/2015 1:02:41 PM

I don't know that specific player's build, but he specifically seems to be sold consistently low, so perhaps he's a throwback to the old donkeys who had huge salaries and skillsets not commensurate with that, and simply isn't worth having to most teams but can't be fired because the NT saves him.

His build was like this: 8/5/2 4/10/5 19/19/17/8.

So how do you explain that a player who isn't worth his cost, did sell 4 times (one retained) within one season with 5 to 10 bids each time? Past 110k the market has not seen the same inflation, as perfectly shown by american starting NT guards failing to sell at high inital price (but in line with the guidance...

Sure, like Mark Horner, who sold twice for less than 100k in season 28 and went for 600k in season 29? Or Tobe McCullough, who went for 25k in season 27, and last sold for 838k in January? Or maybe Britton, though I don't know if he's been listed or not but also sold for 111k and 255k in season 28.

I mean, those are all the American NT guards that have been transferred relatively recently.

But of course the inflation isn't the same. The number of teams that can afford 110k+ salary players is flat. There has always been an oversupply of those because of the NT and because people are told not to waste time with lower potential, so the supply and demand curve is going to be different. I kind of wish I didn't know that you already knew that, so I felt like explaining that was actually useful.

Well, that's all I needed to read. The taxes were *always* dependent on the number of previous sales (at least, as far back as season 15, when I joined). What has changed is that for teams with a high number of sales, that tax has increased further.

I dont think this information was in the Game Manual before the changes, but perhaps Perpete can confirm if the so-called daytrading tax was not really something new, but the change of rules which were already present. I tend to doubt the information you're giving out here, hrudey, since nobody, as far as I know, has come out showing values even remotely close to 80% after the change even with very few sales in the previous 14 weeks.

In any case, we're derailing the thread here and there is no meaningful impact to my point even if I can change my statement into: "when the revenues from a sale were not as massively dependant on the number of previous sales."

I also found another manager who openly said he was going to fire to avoid the new tax (or the "extra" new tax if what you say is true) (264414.116)

You may be right. I seem to think the "you have sold x players in the past 14 weeks" was always there and calculated in the cost, but I'm less sure of that now than I was when I typed that earlier. I'm going to just presume you're right since I so rarely sell players anyhow.

Sure, like Mark Horner, who sold twice for less than 100k in season 28 and went for 600k in season 29?

Horner is in the hands of an English manager and since I regularly check who is listing what in all D1 and D2s I know how much he's been listed for (more than twice as much that 838k). His current owner might have overpaid, but at the price he listed him for, which was within the estimated price guideline, there was absolutely no interest.

But of course the inflation isn't the same. The number of teams that can afford 110k+ salary players is flat...so the supply and demand curve is going to be different.

We finally agree on something ;). I would equally state the obvious when I say that when this discussion started several people made it very clear that they feel the problems are at the mid-low end and not at D1/NT level...

^^ your just spouting a lot something to say. I'm sorry I going to call you on it.

The reason why its flat is because there a restriction on mid~lower level team on buying those kind of player it has nothing to do with nt. You know this as factual .

Player prices being high as an adverse effect on mid-and-low level teams. Prices being low has an adverse effect on mid-and-low level teams. Two years ago, prices being low was killing the game. Now, prices being high is killing the game.

A. Low prices don't affect lower and mid-level teams adversely -- quit blowing smoke.

B. Your quote makes it sound like you are advocating doing nothing to correct the problem, merely letting the pendulum swing wildly back and forth, alternately hurting the game one way and then another way. Swell.

It also makes it sound like if someone were to kick the butts of the people in a position to fix this, someone would be breaking a few thumbs. Swell.

Player prices being high as an adverse effect on mid-and-low level teams. Prices being low has an adverse effect on mid-and-low level teams. Two years ago, prices being low was killing the game. Now, prices being high is killing the game.

A. Low prices don't affect lower and mid-level teams adversely -- quit blowing smoke.

You're probably still not caught up to where I spoke about that more. Long story short: the more value each individual dollar has on the market (e.g., deflationary period), the bigger the advantage that higher revenues in higher divisions becomes.

Player prices being high as an adverse effect on mid-and-low level teams. Prices being low has an adverse effect on mid-and-low level teams. Two years ago, prices being low was killing the game. Now, prices being high is killing the game.

A. Low prices don't affect lower and mid-level teams adversely -- quit blowing smoke.

You're probably still not caught up to where I spoke about that more. Long story short: the more value each individual dollar has on the market (e.g., deflationary period), the bigger the advantage that higher revenues in higher divisions becomes.

Except for the underlying fact that top-level teams aren't competing with lower-level teams for any players, that might fool some people ... but it's more smoke.

No that's fine as I said "I dont think this information was in the Game Manual before the changes", but I'm satisfied with your opinion on it.

As I clarified, it doesn't really change my point anyway since the change impacted everyone, even those who have far less than 15 sales. I've never been close to 15 sales, but my revenues from a sale are around 30% less than they were before, not to mention Kozlik and that other manager who had negative numbers....

yet without fail, whatever issue plagues the game, it's always that it disproportionately affects the lower levels, and so BB wants it that way.

You or Perpete said that not me. Re-read the thread and you will see that one of you guys mentioned that Marin explicitly wants it this way.

When player prices rise, it costs more to bring in the next set of players, which means that more money is flowing out of higher level teams down to the middle and lower tier teams that are building those players....But the long and short of it is that the reason inflation is better than deflation by a wide margin for newer teams is precisely that it helps erode the advantage older and higher level teams have

You're forgetting one thing we've been telling you forever now: that inflation is not the same at all levels. Lower salary FA do not help top teams maintain their edge in any conceivable way. It's like we're saying apples and you reply bananas.

Also the real issue here is assets. Cash is an asset without yield. Inflationary market erodes the value of cash, it does not erode the value of players and the value of being able to afford those players (through higher revenues). People with better players, with players who have a good market value will do ok no matter where they play, but that's not generally the case for a lower level team who has either banked to build the arena or banked to be able to get a good salary efficient player.

If you want an example of managers who are on top and can leverage their assets in order to acquire other assets look no further than Darkonza. Sure, he's an exceptional manager, but people who have assets are going to be fine no matter what the market is. Yes you may erode some of the value of his cash, but that's not where the real value of his team is. The value is having a team he could sell for 15 millions and with inflation that value might rise to 20 of 25 millions and as long as he rolls his old players smartly into new players he can acquire a similar level of talent.

What about lower managers? They can add value trough cash or through improving their players. Now, through inflation you've just removed the first option so they only have one. Improving by upgrading by position is now just more costly, except for managers who already have exceptionally good players or very salary efficient ones. This is not the case for mid to low level managers who actually need to put down cash (now devalued) to improve their teams.